2 Answers
2

This is an uncommon (<0.5% as common
as earned in the British National
Corpus) but entirely acceptable
alternative form of the simple past
and past participle earned. Still
considered to be incorrect by many,
who are largely unaware of the
historical development of the English
language.

Er, "learnt and "spelt" are still perfectly common in non-American usage.
–
ShreevatsaRSep 21 '10 at 11:06

@ShreevatsaR - yeah, but notice that this doesn't contradict what the Wikitionary says. It says that "earnt" is uncommon.
–
b.rothSep 21 '10 at 12:04

3

Indeed. I agree that "earnt" is uncommon (and the passage is right); I was just afraid someone may think "learnt" or "spelt" were uncommon or considered incorrect. (BTW: According to the British National Corpus, "learnt" occurs between one-third to one-half as often as "learned", while "spelt" is about twice as common as "spelled".)
–
ShreevatsaRSep 21 '10 at 12:29

The interesting thing about these is that the more common spelling with '–ed' reflects the way in which they SHOULD BE pronounced according to the phonetics, but that the less common spelling with '–t' reflects the way they ARE pronounced.
–
Barrie EnglandNov 27 '11 at 8:22

No offense meant, but to add perspective: in American English it sounds quaint and hillbilly-ish. Probably because some very old English constructs are still used in the Appalachian mountains. Just like using "naught" to literally mean "zero" (as opposed to using it rather poetically to mean "nothing", as in "We did it all for naught.")
–
WayneMay 17 '11 at 15:32

@Wayne, ‘nothing’ is the original meaning of ‘nought’. A literal zero is a later sense. The word is a contraction of what was in Old English ne ā wiht ‘not aye (a) whit’ (‘aye’ here in the sense ‘ever’ still common in Scotland, as in for aye ‘forever’).
–
Janus Bahs JacquetFeb 6 '14 at 14:01